Evaluation of improved CT-based hardware attenuation correction in PET/MRI: Application to a 16-channel RF breast coil.
CT-based AC
PET/MR breast cancer imaging
attenuation correction (AC)
bilinear conversion
improved hardware AC
quantitative PET/MR
scatter correction (SC)
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
revised:
19
01
2022
received:
08
08
2021
accepted:
05
02
2022
pubmed:
14
2
2022
medline:
14
4
2022
entrez:
13
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate three different bilinear conversion curves for attenuation correction (AC) of a 16-channel radiofrequency (RF) coil in positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) breast cancer imaging. The quantitative impact of three different bilinear conversions of computed tomography (CT) data for the AC of a 16-channel RF breast coil was systematically evaluated in phantom measurements and on n = 20 PET/MR patients with breast cancer. PET data were reconstructed four times: (1) no coil AC (C-NAC) serving as a reference, (2) established bilinear conversion by Carney et al., (3) bilinear conversion by Paulus et al., and (4) bilinear conversion by Oehmigen et al. Relative differences in PET data were calculated. Independent of the choice of bilinear conversion, significant gains in PET signal, compared to C-NAC, were measurable in all phantom and patient measurements. Mean relative differences of ca. 10% in SUVmean (i.e., standardized uptake value; maximal relative differences up to 30%) due to the integration of the coil AC were calculated, compared to C-NAC in phantom and patient measurements. Relative difference images depict that the quantitative impact of coil AC is highest in regions close to the RF coil when compared to no AC data. Bilinear conversion by Carney et al. shows a slightly overcorrection (2.9%), whereas the conversion by Paulus et al. provides a slight undercorrection of the PET images (-1.6%) in comparison to the no-coil measurement. The bilinear conversion proposed by Oehmigen et al. provides the most appropriate AC for the breast coil in this phantom experiment (-0.2%). A total of 23 congruent lesions could be detected in all patients. All lesions could be detected in all reconstructions. For the best possible PET image quality and accurate PET quantification in breast PET/MRI, the AC of MR hardware components is important. The bilinear conversion proposed by Oehmigen et al. provides the most appropriate AC for the breast coil in this study.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2279-2294Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BM, et al. PET/MR in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(4):304-321.
Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, et al. Simultaneous wholebody 18F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: A pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:2231-2239.
Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: Lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(2):289-296.
Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, et al. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2016;281(1):193-202.
Pujara AC, Raad RA, Ponzo F, et al. Standardized uptake values from PET/MRI in metastatic breast cancer: An organ-based comparison with PET/CT. Breast J. 2016;22:264-273.
Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(9):1452-1460.
Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(2):459-465.
Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, et al. PET/MRI for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer: A comparison with PET/CT and MRI. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:505-513.
Grueneisen J, Sawicki LM, Wetter A, et al. Evaluation of PET and MR datasets in integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI: A comparison of different MR sequences for whole-body restaging of breast cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2017;89:14-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.
Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, Martin O, et al. Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: A comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing 18F-FDG-PET/MRI. EJNMMI. 2018;45:2328-2337.
Delso G, Martinez-Moller A, Bundschuh RA, et al. Evaluation of the attenuation properties of MR equipment for its use in a whole-body PET/MR scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:4361-4374.
MacDonald LR, Kohlmyer S, Liu C, et al. Effects of MR surface coils on PET quantification. Med Phys. 2011;38:2948-2956.
Tellmann L, Quick HH, Bockisch A, et al. The effect of MR surface coils on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR: Results from a pseudo-PET/MR phantom study. Med Phys. 2011;38:2795-2805.
Aklan B, Paulus DH, Wenkel E, et al. Toward simultaneous PET/MR breast imaging: Systematic evaluation and integration of a radiofrequency breast coil. Med Phys. 2013;40:1-11.
Oehmigen M, Lindemann ME, Lanz T, et al. Integrated PET/MR breast cancer imaging: Attenuation correction and implementation of a 16-channel RF coil. Med Phys. 2016;43(8):4808-4820.
Dregely I, Lanz T, Metz S, et al. A 16-channel MR coil for simultaneous PET/MR imaging in breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1154-1161.
Beyer T, Lassen ML, Boellaard R, et al. Investigating the state-of-the-art in whole-body MR-based attenuation correction: an intra-individual, inter-system, inventory study on three clinical PET/MR systems. MAGMA. 2016;29:75-87.
Mehranian A, Arabi H, Zaidi H. Vision 20/20: Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation correction in PET/MRI: Challenges, solutions, and opportunities. Med Phys. 2016;43(3):1130-1155.
LaCroix KJ, Tsui BMW, Hasegawa BH, Brown JK. Investigation of the use of X-ray CT images for attenuation compensation in SPECT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1994;41:2793-2799.
Carney J, Townsend D, Rappoport V, Bendriem B. Method for transforming CT images for attenuation correction in PET/CT imaging. Med Phys. 2006;33:976-983.
Kinahan P, Hasegawa B, and Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:166-179.
Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:520-526.
Paulus DH, Quick HH, Geppert C, et al. Whole-body PET/MR imaging: Quantitative evaluation of a novel model-based MR attenuation correction method including bone. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1061-1066.
Lindemann ME, Oehmigen M, Blumhagen JO, Gratz M, Quick HH. MR-based truncation and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging using HUGE with continuous table motion. Med Phys. 2017;44(9):4559-4572.
Paulus DH, Braun H, Aklan B, et al. Simultaneous PET/MR imaging: MR-based attenuation correction of local radiofrequency surface coils. Med Phys. 2012;39(7):4306-4315.
Catana C, van der Kouwe A, Benner T, et al. Toward implementing an MRI-based PET attenuation-correction method for neurologic studies on the MR-PET brain prototype. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(9):1431-1438.
Hofmann M, Pichler BJ, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: A review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:93-104.
Ljungberg E, Damestani NL, Wood TC, et al. Silent zero TE MR neuroimaging: Current state-of-the-art and future directions. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2021;123:73-93.
Eldib M, Bini J, Faul DD, et al. Attenuation correction for MR coils in combined PET/MR imaging: A review. PET Clin. 2016;11:151-160.
Bailey DL. Transmission scanning in emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:774-787.
Wagenknecht G, Kaiser HJ, Mottaghy FM, Herzog H. MRI for attenuation correction in PET: Methods and challenges. Magn Reson Mater Phy. 2013;26:99-113.
Lindemann ME, Oehmigen M, Lanz T, et al. CAD-based hardware attenuation correction in PET/MRI: First methodical investigations and clinical application of a 16-channel RF breast coil. Med Phys. 2021;48:6696-6709. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15284.
Heußer T, Rank CM, Berker Y, et al. MLAA-based attenuation correction of flexible hardware components in hybrid PET/MR imaging. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4(12):1-23.
Lerche CW, Kaltsas T, Caldeira L, et al. PET attenuation correction for rigid MR Tx/Rx coils from 176Lu background activity. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63.035039.
Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys. Med. Biol. 2011;56:3091-3106.
Quick HH. Integrated PET/MR. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39:243-258.
Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin T. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 1998;25:2046-2053.
Burger C, Goerres GW, Schoenes S, et al. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: Experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:922-927.
Watson CC, Rappoport V, Faul D, et al. A method for calibrating the CT-based attenuation correction of PET in human tissue. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53:102-107.
Oehmigen M, Lindemann ME, Tellmann L, et al. Improving the CT (140 kVp) to PET (511 keV) conversion in PET/MR hardware component attenuation correction. Med Phys. 2020;47:2116-2127.
Paulus DH, Tellmann L, Quick HH. Towards improved hardware component attenuation correction in PET/MR hybrid imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:8021-8040.
Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C, et al. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology. 2003;226:577-584.
Oehmigen M, Lindemann ME, Gratz M, et al. Impact of improved attenuation correction featuring a bone atlas and truncation correction on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;45(4):642-653.
Burgos N, Thielemans K, Cardoso MJ, et al. Effect of Scatter Correction When Comparing Attenuation Maps: Application to Brain PET/MR. 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Seattle, WA, 8-15 November 2014. IEEE; 2014.
Oehmigen M, Lindemann ME, Gratz M, et al. A dual-tuned 13C/1H head coil for PET/MR hybrid neuroimaging: Development, attenuation correction, and first evaluation. Med Phys. 2018;45(11):4877-4887.
Paulus DH, Quick HH. Hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: Challenges, methods, and state of the art of hardware component attenuation correction. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(10):624-634.
Zhang B, Pal D, Hu Z, et al. Attenuation Correction for MR Table and Coils for a Sequential PET/MR System. 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Orlando, FL, 24 October-1 November. IEEE; 2009.
Eldib M, Bini J, Calcagno C, et al. Attenuation correction for flexible magnetic resonance coils in combined magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography imaging. Invest Radiol. 2014;49:63-69.
Patrick JC, Thompson RT, So A, et al. Technical note: Comparison of megavoltage, dual-energy, and single-energy CT-based μ-maps for a four-channel breast coil in PET/MRI. Med Phys. 2017;44:4758-4765.
Kartmann R, Paulus DH, Braun H, et al. Integrated PET/MR imaging: Automatic attenuation correction of flexible RF coils. Med Phys. 2013;40(8):082301.
Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. JNM. 2002;43:1137-1143.
Mallory MA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, et al. Feasibility of intraoperative breast MRI and the role of prone versus supine positioning in surgical planning for breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2017;23:713-717.
Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: Guidelines from the European society of breast imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(7):1307-1318.
Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, et al. What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol. 2019;29:1787-1798.
Goorts B, Vöö S, van Nijnatten TJA, et al. Hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI might improve locoregional staging of breast cancer patients prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. EJNMMI. 2017;44:1796-1805.
Byon JH, Park YV, Yoon JH, et al. Added value of MRI for invasive breast cancer including the entire axilla for evaluation of high-level or advanced axillary lymph node metastasis in the post-ACOSOG Z0011 trial era. Radiology. 2021;300:46-54.
Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Demircioglu A, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/MRI for therapy response assessment of isolated limb perfusion in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas. JNM. 2019;60:1537-1542. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.226761.
Sarabhai T, Tschischka A, Stebner V, et al. Simultaneous multiparametric PET/MRI for the assessment of therapeutic response to chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy of cervical cancer patients: Preliminary results. Clin Imaging. 2018;49:163-168.
Paulus DH, Oehmigen M, Grüneisen J, et al. Whole-body hybrid imaging concept for the integration of PET/MR into radiation therapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(9):3504-3520.